The Judgment in the case of Shahrar Ali versus the Green Party

The legal case Shahrar Ali, former deputy leader of the Green Party and previously Green Party candidate for Brent Central, brought against the Green Party resulted in a judgment today. In papers submitted to the court, lawyers acting for Dr Ali claim that officials in the Green Party "collaborated" to remove him from his post  as spokesperson on policing and public safety because of his beliefs about gender, which include the view that "biology is real and immutable". 

The judgment found that Shahrar Ali was discriminated against procedurally in an unfair way because of his protected beliefs but did not find in his favour in other aspects of the case. He was awarded £9,100 in damages. Costs will be decided later.

 

Outside the court Ali said:

 

I see this as my gift to the Green Part y and wider politics, particularly in the left, where there has been an extraordinary toxicity preventing us from speaking freely.

 

Parties are not beyond the law when it comes to seeking to discipline their representatives in accordance with their own rules for alleged misconduct

 

He called for the  Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the Green Party over how it handles trans rights debates.

 

The Chair of the Green Party executive, Jon Nott, said: 

 

We are pleased that the court has recognised that a democratic political party has the right to select those who speak for it on the basis that they can and will communicate and support party policy publicly.  

We welcome the findings in the judgment that members of political parties have ‘fundamental party rights’ which include the right to disagree, to advocate for and against policies and positions adopted or proposed in the party, and to organise for those who agree with them and against those who do not, and that the Equality Act is not intended to interfere with those rights. 

 

The party acknowledges that there were procedural shortfalls in how we deselected one of our spokespeople. We apologise for failing in this instance to live up to the standards that both we and the court expect.

 

 Both sides of the case claimed to have won aspects of the case. I can't post the 61 page judgment for space reasons but here are their statements.

 

didlaw who acted for Shahrar Ali said:

 

didlaw is delighted to announce the successful judgment for its client Dr Shahrar Ali in his discrimination claims against the Green Party of England & Wales. 

 

Dr Ali pursued discrimination claims against the Green Party on the basis that he was subjected to a co-ordinated campaign by the Party to see him removed as a Party spokesperson, because of his gender critical beliefs. These beliefs, that sex is real and immutable are protected under section 10 of the Equality Act 2010. 

 

It was Dr Ali’s case that when the Party Executive Committee failed to secure enough votes to remove him as Spokesperson at a meeting in June 2021, a new process was devised so as to ensure he was removed. In October 2021, a newly formed Spokesperson Support and Monitoring Group asked Dr Ali to address concerns about ‘trans rights’. Unbeknown to Dr Ali, one of the Group’s key aims was to censure him. 

 

On 5 February 2022 a majority of the Party’s Executive voted to remove Dr Ali from his Spokesperson role. The Party did not formally inform him of the removal and nor was he provided with any specific reason for the removal save for a public announcement made on Twitter which alleged that he had breached the Spokespeople Code of Conduct. 

 

In a 61-page judgment HHJ Hellman clearly describes the treatment of Dr Ali’s case and upholds his claim that the Green Party Executive Committee, by removing Dr Ali from his role of Spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, ‘discriminated against Dr Ali because of his protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.’ 

The judgment concludes ‘I have upheld in part Dr Ali’s claim that he was unlawfully discriminated against’ and states ‘Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.’ In addition to a declaration of unlawful discrimination Dr Ali has also been awarded £9,100 as an award for injury to feelings. 

 

This is a landmark case and the first protected belief case against a political party. It is also the first case in which the court has had to consider the protection of those with gender critical beliefs in a political party. The key factor for consideration in any protected belief case is the balance between the reasonable manifestation of a belief and the limitations imposed by Articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR in the context in which those beliefs are expressed. This is a tricky balancing act. One thing is clear, the Equality Act 2010 and the obligation to protect members from discrimination applies to all political parties. 

 

Bates Well who acted for the Green Party said:

 

The County Court has given judgment in the case of Ali v representatives of the Green Party of England and Wales. In doing so, it has set out novel and timely principles on the interaction between the prohibition on discrimination by associations in the Equality Act 2010 and the fundamental rights of members of political parties under the European Convention on Human Rights, in a decision which will be of great interest to political parties and campaigners of all kinds.

 

Giving judgment, HHJ Hellman agreed with the Claimant on one matter: that his removal had been procedurally unfair, and that he could not rule out the possibility (which had been the Party’s to disprove) that this procedural unfairness had been due to the Claimant’s protected beliefs. To that limited extent, the Claimant had been discriminated against. He was awarded £9,100 for injury to feelings. However, HHJ Hellman was careful to specify that it is explicitly not discriminatory for a political party merely to remove a spokesperson on the grounds of (in this case, gender critical) belief, provided it follows a fair procedure in doing so. He stated “The Green Party could not, in any event, have been compelled to maintain Dr Ali as a spokesperson if (outside of a party election period) he expressed beliefs that were inconsistent with Party policy, or if they reasonably concluded that he would do so, as this would infringe their article 9(1) rights by obliging them to manifest a belief which they did not hold” (243).

 

The reason for this finding concerned the interaction between the EqA and the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the ECHR into domestic law. HHJ Hellman considered the meaning of three articles of the ECHR: Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Taken together, he held that these Articles guarantee (amongst other things) the rights of members of political parties to:

• advocate for or against policies and positions adopted or proposed to be adopted by their party;
• criticise the beliefs or conduct of other members which are inconsistent with the policies and positions they advocate, including using language which their opponents might find offensive; and
• advocate and organise within the party in support of members who support their favoured policies and positions and against members who do not.  
  

 

Importantly, HHJ Hellman held that these rights, which he termed “fundamental party rights”, are so core to democratic society that Parliament cannot have intended to restrict them under the prohibition in the EqA against discrimination by associations. Section 101 of the EqA, which contains the prohibition on discriminatory “detriment”, must therefore be construed to exclude the exercise of those rights, as any curtailment of these rights pursuant to s.101 could not be justified in accordance with Higgs [see 207]. Several of the claims made by the Claimant were dismissed on this ground.

 

The remainder of the Claimants’ complaints were also dismissed in their entirety. Some of them were made out of time, and concerned events so clearly separate from the later events complained of that they could not constitute a ‘single act’. Others related to the Party’s local branches, separate organisations within the Party such as the Young Greens, or candidates in internal Party elections; the Claimant failed to establish that those named had been acting as agents of the Party.

 

Commentary

It is now beyond dispute that those with gender critical beliefs enjoy protection under the Equality Act. While those beliefs are protected, however, the issues with which they are concerned are a long way from being uncontentious. Rather, they remain a matter of heated and ill-tempered political debate, not least within political parties themselves. This claim effectively asked the court to direct a political party as to how to conduct that debate. It is to be welcomed that the court would not do so.

 

The principles established in this judgment mean that political parties remain free to debate these and other issues, even in terms which might be considered offensive. If this debate rubs up against protected beliefs, then so be it: some degree of discrimination on the grounds of belief is part of the essence of democratic politics; indeed, as HHJ Hellman observed, every five years voters perpetrate “an act of mass direct discrimination against other persons on grounds of the protected characteristic of belief” simply by voting in a general election.

 

Where key role-holders are being appointed or removed, parties should bear in mind the court’s warning that it will not infringe the fundamental party rights to hold them to requirements of procedural fairness. Provided those requirements are met, however, the field of political debate remains an area into which the courts will not easily be led.

 

 

Greens celebrate nana anti-fracking victory by giving her lifetime membership

The Green Party has celebrated the dismissal of the case against Anti-Fracking Nana Tina Rothery today as a victory for the future of peaceful protest.

Rothery, a 54-year-old grandmother, could have become the first ever climate change protestor to go to prison when she appeared at The Law Courts in Preston today (Friday 9 December 2016).
Rothery was taken to court by fracking firm Cuadrilla for trespass after she staged a peaceful protest in a field near Blackpool which was under consideration as a fracking exploration site.

She was ordered to pay the firm’s legal bills which stood at more than £55,000, and could have faced 14 days in jail for refusing to pay. But today a judge dismissed the case against her.

The Green Party has given Rothery lifetime membership in support of her fight against shale gas exploration in Lancashire.

Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party, said:

Today marks a great victory for everyone who believes in the right to peaceful protest and the fight against climate change. It would have been utterly unjust to jail Tina Rothery, who has shown exceptional courage protecting her community from the threat of fracking.

It is an honour to give Tina lifetime Green Party membership in recognition of her bravery in the fight to protect our planet.

Amelia Womack, deputy leader of the Green Party, said:

We say today that companies targeting individuals will meet ever stronger opposition. Fracking completely undermines the international climate commitments to limit warming to 2 degrees as made under the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

If we are to stop climate chaos, there can be no new dirty fossil fuel infrastructure. No pipelines. No mines. No fracking.

Greens call for free public transport today to combat expected extreme air pollution

Keith Taylor, Green MEP for South East England, is calling for public transport across South East England to be made free within cities and towns today to combat the very extreme levels of air pollution that is expected across the region. 

This follows Paris’s example where the authorities made public transport free during a smog episode last year.

In previous pollution alerts France also imposed a reduced speed limit for traffic.

Alongside this the Mayor reduced city centre access for vehicles alternating with odd and even registration numbers. Similarly the Mayor is also talking about removing diesel vehicles (which are responsible for particulate emissions and NO2) completely.

Experts have recently suggested that the death toll from air pollution, usually put at around 29,000 a year in the UK, could be substantially higher because of the effect of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), emitted during fossil fuel burning, which up until now has not been taken into account.

Next Thursday 16^th April the Government are being taken to court by Environmental group Client Earth over consistently high levels of air pollution that break EU rules.

 

Keith Taylor Green MEP for South East England said:

Measures such as making public transport free for the day should be considered during serious smog episodes in Britain such as the one we’re experiencing today. Previous actions taken in Paris shows they recognise the unrest caused by air pollution and that they are prepared to take action.

The Green Party has been warning everyone for years about the serious health problems that are associated with air pollution. 

 

How many deaths does it have to take before the Government will properly act?

The Need for a National Campaign for Education

Writing on Wembley Matters I have repeatedly criticised Michael Gove's neoliberal reforms in education, the privatisation agenda represented by academies and free schools, and the way the emphasis on test results and league tables narrows the very concept of education and deprives children of their childhood.

The Anti-Academies Alliance has recognised the may strands of this battle and I fully support their support for a National Campaign for Education.

In this report Alasdair Smith, National Secretary  of the Anti Academies Alliance, outlines the issues and notes in passing the Green Party's opposition to the neoliberal vision.

Rumour has it that policy wonks in the DfE are hard at work on how to manage “market failures”.

Indeed the number of failing academies is soaring.  But then ‘failure’ is hardwired into a system of rationed exam success, the ever-changing goalpost of OFSTED and unbridled greed of ‘social entrepreneurs’ who now claim they have a special responsibility to transform education. Peter Hyman – pass the sick bucket please.

The wheels of big business intervention are in full motion.  I have looked, to no avail, to find figures on the increase in rate of investment by education businesses over the last 10 years. My guess it is huge. Rupert Murdoch’s re-branded edu-business – Amplify (www.amplify.com ) is clearly backed by huge investment.  Not surprisingly alongside big money, comes a whiff of corruption - nepotism, dishonesty and manipulation swirls around the system – with exam cheating, pilfering public money and appointing family members now part of Gove’s dystopian nightmare.

Revelations that several academies have adopted Section 28 style policy outlawing 'promotion of homosexuality’ come as no surprise. Deregulation and privatisation - what Gove calls 'autonomy' - can be a licence for bigotry. The outcry raised by the British Humanist Association report has forced the government into a review but we will need hard proof that no school has Section 28 style clauses in future.

The scandal of free schools is even worrying the likes of Graham Stuart – the Tory chair of Education Select Committee. The huge costs, obvious lack of value for money and, most disgracefully, the fact that free schools are opening in areas where there is no need for places is causing huge concern.

There is a ticking time bomb over the shortage of school places. Some parts of London now have several 5 form entry primary schools and are considering split shift education provision unless funding is dramatically increased.

Of course Gove will point to the odd ‘success’ in his new world order. But does he ask about the failures? And what will he do about them?

Is resistance to academy conversion futile?

The academy conversion process is now so clinical, so undemocratic and so dishonest that local campaigns rise and fall within weeks. Schools are handed to sponsors on a plate by DfE brokers. As John Harris argued in the Guardian last week there is murky relationship between OFSTED and academisation ( http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/ofsted-lashing-out-against-primary-schools )

This means there is little chance to build sustained campaign as happened at Downhills. Yet parents are still willing to fight. Neither Gove nor academy conversion is popular. Gove is hated by the profession. There is a profound sense that our communities are being bullied into conversion.

People understand that this policy is the same as policy as the privatising of the NHS. But unfortunately the patterns of resistance are similar to NHS too, although the sporadic protests tend to be even smaller.

One reason for the absence of serious resistance is that Stephen Twigg’s criticism of Gove’s policies has been too muted. Other Labour politicians have offered more - for example Andy Burnham's trenchant defence of comprehensive education. In some areas Labour MPs have worked hard to stem the tide and build alliances with parents and the profession.  But the few national policy announcement’s seems to be little more than ‘Gove lite’.

Elsewhere the Westminster village is in thrall to Gove. We should not believe for one minute that the Lib Dems are holding back Gove. David Laws has been central to propping up elements of Gove’s agenda such as Schools Direct and privatisation of teacher training.

Apart from the Green Party, a few principled MPs and a handful of commentators, the political class remain wholly committed to this neoliberal vision, or what Finnish educationalist Pasi Salhberg calls GERM – Global Education Reform Movement.

It means we need to think long and hard about our approach to education reform. There have been some bold initiatives. CASE, SEA and others have created Picking up the Pieces. This has identified some key features of what a good education system would look like.  The NUT and Compass have joined together to run an enquiry into future of education. Both initiatives appear to be focused on persuading Labour to change its policy going into the next election.

The viability of that strategy is a matter of some debate. In contrast the AAA has continued to try to mobilise parents and staff in campaign at school level, but with limited success. But it has also argued that we need something more. We need a new vision for education that stimulates a nationwide debate and action on achieving it.

The terrain has changed. We are not fighting a single battle against academies, but a ‘war’ in several different areas of education: curriculum, school places, primary, pre-school, teacher training and so on. The scale and breadth of attacks is unprecedented.

If the terrain changes, the vehicle has to change

From the outset we argued that the academies programme was a ‘Trojan horse’ to help break up state education as part of a much grander design to deregulate and privatise the whole system. That prediction is now becoming a reality. But just opposing academies and free schools does not always offer the best opportunities to fight back against Gove. Increasingly much of the secondary sector is now conditioned to academy status. And although academisation is new to the primary sector, it remains rare that single schools fighting alone stop conversion.

Our arguments about the real nature of the academies programme have stood the test of time, but our ability to halt it remains limited. So for the last couple of years the AAA has argued for a National Campaign for Education (NCE) to unite campaigns to create a greater sense of common purpose and above all to articulate ideas around what sort of education system we want not just what we are against.

There are many other areas of education policy on which Gove is more vulnerable. New campaigns are emerging all the time. The multiplicity of different campaigns working on different projects and timescales continue. Avoiding this sort of duplication of effort is a good argument for an NCE. But here is also another more compelling argument. The historic agreement between the NUT and NASUWT for joint programme of action that began on 27th June and will continue on 1^st and 17^th October offers new hope of resistance across the profession.

Whatever the success of the joint action there remains a job to be done for an NCE. It needs to keep alive ideas of what it means to have a comprehensive, progressive and democratic education system. It needs to engage in popularising a wholly different vision of education based on key ideas of the Finnish system - equality & ‘less is more’. But crucially this shared theoretical vision needs some genuine prospect of realisation for it to have any meaning. So the NCE needs to have a campaigning edge. It needs to take the debate on the future of education into schools and communities up and down the country.

As was reported at the AGM in March, progress towards an NCE has been slow. Support for it was agreed at NUT and UNISON conferences and a few practical steps have been taken.

The AAA is committed to working towards an NCE, but there remains plenty of work for us to do. Our primary function of supporting local campaign continues.
 

Don't clog us up with more waste plants - Darren Johnson

In June Darren Johns, Green AM,  visited Pinkham Way in north London, the site of a proposed new waste plant and refuse lorry depot. With over a thousand vehicle movements (including many HGVs) a day, the proposed waste plant at Pinkham Way would make air pollution in the area even worse and affect the health of local residents and local schoolchildren. The roads are already some of the most congested in London and residents are right to be concerned about more lorries belching out more fumes. Even without any further traffic increases, a local air quality monitoring station has already recorded 20 bad air days this year and could exceed the legal annual limit of 35 bad air days.

Darren made clear to residents that while it is vital that we have new facilities in London to deal with waste, he does not believe that huge facilities of this size or type are the way forward or appropriate in congested urban areas or close to residential areas. He argued the North London Waste Authority should be putting far more emphasis on encouraging collection of doorstep recycling and food waste, rather than concentrating on large new plant for unsorted black bin waste such as this. 

Similar issues are raised by the proposals for more waste processing plants in Park Royal, the Careys plant in Neasden, and the incinerator planned for Brent Cross.

What is a Green Job?

Shambolic government policy making exposed

Caroline Lucas MP released the following statement yesterday on the Coalition's u-turn on forests:

On behalf of the many hundreds of my constituents who have written in to oppose the sell-off of our public forest estate, I welcome the Government's decision to ditch these reckless plans - and am encouraged by the commitment given to me by the Secretary of State that those people who led the inspirational grassroots movement against the sell off will be included in the new panel of experts set up to consider the future of the forests. Now it will be vital to ensure that the panel itself operates in public. This major u-turn exposes the shambolic nature of the Government's policy-making - and is the inevitable consequence of ministers blindly charging ahead with ideologically driven cuts.

Defend Public Services - Build a Greener Society